Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11 minutes ago, Spiderwebbie wrote:

You are incorrect here. The deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is widely understood to be the reason that there have been no major wars since the close of World War II. The deterrent effect is the reason the Cold War didn't become the Hot War - for one example of many.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay. No state will unilaterally disarm because that removes their deterrent. No group of states will multilaterally disarm because it leaves them with one hell of a prisoner's dilemma. Nuclear weapons have, ironically, kept the peace since World War II. There is an idea called the stability-instability paradox that I recommend you read about that I don't have the time to go into right now.

I understand how it has kept peace. But I have to agree and say, there are some in this world we need worry about actually using them. I honestly don't think Iran would. However a desperate country, might sell something to the wrong person willing to buy. For anyone anywhere... we all on a worldy basis need to stay on top of these kind of weapons.

I just hate weapons and fighting all together. A comfortable world peace between one country to another and every country on this planet is something I would love to see in my lifetime.

I don't think that Iran would use them either. The issue that would arise from an Iranian nuclear weapon is not so much use of said weapon but the destabilizing effect it would have on the region. It Iran develops a weapon it would could set off a domino effect in the region. This would be for the deterrent effect. Let's say Iran develops a weapon and Saudi Arabia does not have one and is not under the US nuclear umbrella. They would naturally seek a weapon to deter Iran from detonating a nuclear device over their country. Reasonable. But then other nations may wish to develop a bomb to deter the Saudi bomb. And so on. Soon you have entire regions developing weapons and then the stability of the world plummets. This can be seen with India and Pakistan, for example.

I would like to see peace as well. I think most human beings would but one of the scourges of the human condition is conflict and violence. Take away nukes and replace them with sticks, someone will decide to kill the person with the smaller stick. Unfortunately, peace is not attainable however through proper management total war the scale of WWI or WWII can be averted.

At 2 minutes ago, Spiderwebbie wrote: Nobody and no country needs nuclear weapons anymore. If wars should continue, we need just throw away the guns, and get back out the swords we all once knew. I'll always side with the one who brings a sword to a gun fight. But bombs, ON THE NUCLEAR LEVEL? you freakin serious? did nobody learn anything from the last time one of these bombs drop??? Okay so you wanna end the world and not just dangerously torment your worldy nieghbor? I got an idea... IT's great! I think about it everytime my boss asks me to do anything, or that time I ran my car into that tree, TO AVOID THE SQUIRELL! .... or that nature show I watched last night and that beautiful elephant dies from the africian drought and the people filming this elephant over all these years did nothing but let it die.
LETS drop one of these things on the bigest volcano we can find... Iike the one right here in the good ol usa and see what happens? I'm actually curious.

You are incorrect here. The deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is widely understood to be the reason that there have been no major wars since the close of World War II. The deterrent effect is the reason the Cold War didn't become the Hot War - for one example of many.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay. No state will unilaterally disarm because that removes their deterrent. No group of states will multilaterally disarm because it leaves them with one hell of a prisoner's dilemma. Nuclear weapons have, ironically, kept the peace since World War II. There is an idea called the stability-instability paradox that I recommend you read about that I don't have the time to go into right now.

I grew up in Poland where there is technically a drinking age but if you look above sixteen you won't hassled at a bar or liquor store. I now live in the United States where, as we all know, there are notoriously strict alcohol laws.

All that being said, drinking among the youth in both countries is, it seems to me with no statistics to back this up, roughly the same. In Poland getting the booze is easy. In the US getting the booze is slightly less easy. How many of us didn't have friends to buy us alcohol growing up? Drinking ages are formalities, at best - if a kid wants to get fucked up you would be amazed at the creativity he will employ to accomplish that.

What's more unbelievable than people being surprised at a Russian election not being fair are the people who think that Russia will ever be anything other than autocratic. You can't fight the tide of 1,500 years of Muscovite authoritarianism, Russia simple does not have the institutions for democracy - nor the capability to develop them, for a few reasons:

Russia is a vast country. There are many living far from Petersburg and Moscow that are scantly aware that they are even Russian let alone whom care about elections. This sounds impossible to Western people but it is the reality in Russia.

Russia, or more correctly Muscovy, has accomplished great things under authoritarian rule. Russians are imperialistic by nature, their government machinery functions only on the condition of expansion. Russians don't simply treat nations within their sphere of influence as conquered peoples, they treat their own citizens as conquered people - this is the most basic element of Russian governance for a thousand years and without understand this fact there can no hope for understanding Russian realities.

Russians live in a society of repression. The election may have been rigged but the danger of retaliation from the government if one dissents is enormous. Just ask Alexander Litvinenko what happens when you accuse Putin and the government of serious crimes they most likely committed on a public forum which, unless you can speak to the dead, would be difficult because he was poisoned and killed in London.

I'm a student of Russia (which is not to say I am expert) and from everything I've spent considerable time studying I can honestly say that I do not believe Russia will every experience a free election or a true democracy. Capitalism in Russia became a new form of exploitation worse, some would argue, than the Soviet system. Russia is inexplicable. It can't be explained or fixed or changed. It just is.